Subscribe
Not all protected areas are created equal, and most aren’t even in the right place. Despite covering nearly 17 per cent of Earth’s land surface, many protected areas (PAs) are not effectively shielding biodiversity from the growing tide of human-driven threats. A global study has revealed that a majority of PAs fail to coincide with regions facing the most intense ecological pressures, calling into question the very foundation of current conservation practices.
Using data from 33,379 species and 255,848 protected sites, researchers examined how PAs overlap with six major drivers of biodiversity loss: agriculture, logging, hunting, pollution, invasive species, and urbanisation. The results, published in the journal Conservation Biology on June 9, 2025, paint a troubling picture: while 21 per cent of terrestrial land was found to have a high probability of facing one or more threats, 76 per cent of these high-risk zones are inadequately protected, meaning they lie outside or only partially within PAs.
The study was conducted only on terrestrial areas and excluded marine systems. The focus was on terrestrial vertebrates: amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles. India, along with China and Turkiye, was excluded from the analysis due to the unavailability of PA data in the global databases — International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and the World Database of Protected Areas — used.
The researchers used generalised additive models (GAMs) and fine-scale 50×50 km grid data to estimate the overlap between threat probability and PA coverage. Tellingly, they found that in most cases, protection status did not correlate with lower threat levels, except for amphibians and reptiles, which saw some benefit from higher PA coverage. This does not mean PAs are not needed. Rather, it highlights that PAs must be strategically located and better managed to be effective. The problem is misplacement, not the concept of protection itself.
Geographical blocks in which more than 15 per cent of its species were threatened, predominated in insufficiently covered areas with the highest impact probability.
These areas were found primarily in Central America and the South American Andes for amphibians, the Caribbean for amphibians and reptiles, Polynesia and Micronesia for birds, and Madagascar and Southeast Asia for mammals. Globally, 58.7 per cent of cells for mammals, 54.6 per cent of cells for amphibians, 40.7 per cent of cells for reptiles, and 22.3 per cent of cells for birds had at least one threat with a high probability of impact in areas of low or absent protection. This is especially alarming because amphibians receive less conservation attention globally, partly due to their smaller ranges and taxonomic bias in PA designation.
This misalignment is not incidental; it’s systemic. The study found that many PAs are located in remote, low-pressure areas, often far from roads, development, and densely inhabited zones. Examples include regions like the Russian Arctic, northern Canada, and central Australia areas with inherently low human activity but not necessarily high conservation urgency.
Cut to the chase, they are placed where it is politically convenient or logistically easy, not where conservation urgency is highest. As a result, biodiversity hotspots like the Andes, Central America, Madagascar, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific islands remain dangerously under protected, despite hosting some of the world’s most threatened species.
This growing gap between protection and threat raises alarms for international conservation targets, particularly under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to halt species extinction and restore ecosystems by 2030. Regarding the 30x30 target to protect 30 per cent of Earth’s land and seas by 2030, the study warned that without aligning PA placement with real threats, such targets risk becoming symbolic rather than impactful.
The study called for urgently rethinking conservation priorities, focusing on the strategic placement of protected areas that align with actual biodiversity threats, rather than treating PA expansion as a numbers game. This message forms the core of the study’s conclusion and should shape future conservation planning. “Otherwise, the green lines on the map may offer a comforting illusion of safety, while biodiversity silently slips away,” the study warned.